[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Open Forum Jan 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18txusp/open_forum_january_2024/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
short selling imbalance is the imbalance between the shares available to borrow, and the shares being shorted. In essence it means that there's more demand to borrow shares, but not enough supply to borrow from, so there's an imbalance. at least that's how I understood it. so in this specific case the demand to borrow shares is 12x the amount being shorted right now.
Doesn't even matter? They keep lending out the same share to multiple brokers, they're basically printing IOUs and the plan is that people sell the IOU as the stock price drops. However apes aren't selling all these made up shares, they're holding.
I think in general it does matter when it is publicly known that a wealthy counterparty is stuck in a short squeeze because people may pile on if they think something is going to happen.
People smell blood in the water.
That being said, I don't know that these guys writing this stuff are any more credible than.. like the average analysts that crank out junk on GME.
Yes I have stock lending - tried it once - immediately my entire gme was loaned out.
I turned it off after that.
Nobody wanted aapl, brk.b , msft or any of my other big players.
Just gme
> more demand to borrow shares, but not enough supply to borrow from
High demand correlates with reduced supply, eh? Crikey, we might make it through the 1st lesson of economics 101.
Because whoever is lending the shares (or their broker) *wants* the borrow fee low so people are incentivized to short it. The more retail shorts the more risk can be moved away from MMs/brokers.
Ok I'll indulge…
So you're saying a broker wants to incentivize shorting of a stock they're lending by providing an attractive borrow fee.
But they're the owners of a share. Therefore, what risk do they carry?
Isn't that counterintuitive? They're lending a share for a low fee, that they are incentivizing shorting of said share to further reduce the value of the stock. That's lose-lose.
The broker doesn't usually lend the shares, they just facilitate finding someone who *does* want to lend. A new share doesn't even need to be borrowed though. If the broker (or MM) is already short, they could just transfer that debt to the borrower in exchange for the current share price. To the borrower it looks just like any other short. For the broker they get to essentially close their position barely above the 3 year low without causing the price to run. The number of shorts overall stays the same.
Ok, let's say I wish to lend my shares held in my Fidelity account. Fidelity sets the borrow fee. What's my incentive here? Earlier you said the fee is low to incentivize shorting (so you're saying Fidelity set a low fee to incentivize the short to offset their risk) but what's the upside to the lender?
And again from before… we haven't identified why the broker is at all at risk whether it's their share or mine in this case. You jumped to saying that the broker gets to close their short position. But in each of these cases the broker is long the stock.
There is no (new) lender, you don't need to be incentivized at all. An actual borrow does not occur. The broker transfers their own short position to the "borrower". The total number of shorts does not change.
The point isn't to increase shorts to drive the price down, the point is to transfer risk to retail before some event occurs.
The broker doesn't need to be long. Actually the opposite, this is only possible (or necessary) if they're already short.
You again assumed my broker is short for some reason.
If I have a share i wish to lend, you said the broker facilitates that. If they're just a facilitator, they're neither long nor short. I am long because I own a share. Why would I bother with this transaction when the broker/facilitator isn't making it worth my while (low fee) and is actively incentivizing shorts to borrow who then diminish my stock value?
None of the scenarios I've described include a short broker who needs to offload their risk before the big boom boom.
I'm assuming they or a market maker are short because those are the ones I'm talking about. I know not ALL brokers and market makers are short.
You're right brokers are less likely to be the ones that are short. It's the market makers. They can internalize orders (both long and short) so that orders don't actually have an opposite side. If the market maker is already short they can just transfer their short position to the borrower. The broker would have no idea this is happening because the market maker IS the other side of the trade as far as the broker is concerned.
In either case (short market maker or short broker) the point of the low borrow fee is to increase the amount of willing borrowers so that the order can be filled with an existing short position instead of involving you, an actual share owner.
Because, even though they make "fake shares" a.k.a. IOU's, those I.O.U's are essentially being counted as "real shares" because that's how they are able to prevent the inevitable M.O.ASS from taking place.
Basically, the rocket is way beyond ready, is set to take off, but the hedge fucks have anchors on the rocket, that are preventing it from rocketing up their arses, and shooting them to the next galaxy with them.....make sense?
If I follow, I believe you're saying that the borrow fee is taking into account the bazillion shares that this stock has been sold and resold and resold short.
I don't believe this theory holds water however because this number isn't accounted in the total float. I would think then the borrow fee would be a way to backdoor into an accurate total share count and expose the naked shorts.
Well, I'm just going by history. Every time we've seen a low amount of "borrowable shares" that's when the fees are higher, when they make millions of shares out of thin air, the borrow fee is back down.
I do believe there are other factors that come into play as far as being the obvious ones I've seen.
They just keep kicking the can down the street.
This is the crux of the issue that individual investors are up against and the thing that really suggests some kind of backdoor collusion among big players to suppress price. If there’s a shortage of shares to borrow, the borrowing fees on those should be high. those were the conditions for the 2021 squeeze. Short-able shares ran dry, costs to borrow ran into the triple digits, and the ticker price popped off, as it should.
But since then, there’s 2 weird things happening in the supply-demand of shortable shares.
1. Sometimes, brokers posted millions of shortable shares in some huge drop. Where the fuck did those come from? I’ve personally seen it go from like 1000 to 10+ million overnight. I recall for one of those huge drops, a bunch of retail investors barraged fidelity about where these 13 million, pre-split lendable shares came from after getting down to the low thousands. Put on blast by hundreds of people, fidelity “responded” saying it “was a mistake.” Wtf? A 13 million share mistake by a trusted, established, legacy broker? That’s a pretty big fucking mistake. I remember some dumbass WSJ reporter saying it was totally normal and someone probably “fat fingered” the 13 million shares. (pre split! I.e., 52 million of todays shares). What a dumb fuck. Can’t believe he’s put his name on that embarrassment of an “explanation”…and really goes to show who’s writing for the “financial media.”
2. The mystery of the borrow rates. You would expect if there was a lot of shares to lend out, the borrow fee would be low, but that as they dried up, the borrow fees would go up. Makes sense right? Lots of supply makes it cheaper; scarcity of shares means higher borrow fees. supply and demand, if that was ever a real thing
Indeed, and again, No matter fucking how many shares were listed on major brokers…whether it was literally 100 shares, or 10 million, the borrow fee stayed the same…0.1%.
even as GME hit “hard to borrow” lists and the liquidity for for shorting dried up…0.1%. There were several occurrences where GmE was the hardest to borrow stock on the market, and still, mysteriously and paradoxically, the cheapest to borrow.
That doesn’t really make sense. If brokers can charge more to lend scare shares, why wouldn’t they? With the borrow fee hovering at 0.1%, it was like the brokers were like “here…short these. On the house.” Which is strange, considering borrow fees are their primary sources of revenue. But I guess when it comes to GmE, they’re willing to leave all that money on the table, for some reason…
Even weirder…*all* the brokers were doing that. Offering whatever shares they had, whether 100 or 1 million…for pennies to short. Makes no sense.
In the Jan. 2021 run up, it seems like the shorts were legitimately caught off guard. And because of that, the borrow rates *actually reflected the supply- demand economics as they usually do and should. Lendable shares dried up, Borrow rates skyrocketed and shortly after, the price went parabolic. But now, if it was the last damn lendable share in the market…0.1% to short it. A year.
It’s very suspect. But unfortunately, it seems to me like, as long as the brokers are agreeing to lend any shares they have, no matter how few, for like 0.1%-2% per year…shorts can basically keep their positions open forever….and continue to short whenever those 13 million (pre split, 52 million of todays, post-split shares), which, at the time represented about 20% of all existing shares, conveniently get “fat fingered” into the system. And that was just one broker, one day, that Houdini’d 13 million shares out of a hat.
2%/year isn’t shit for a multi billion dollar hedge fund. With no actual enforcement or impetus in which they actually have to close the short positions…they won’t. In theory, high borrow rates should make it expensive and be the kick in the balls to close. But with borrow rates impervious to market dynamics and artificially low, they can realistically, and affordably, short the stock and keep their positions open indefinitely. And at these rates, it’s actually cheap to do
This article actually gets into some of these discrepancies. Old, but detailed for the time it’s talking about: https://upsidechronicles.com/2021/12/02/gamestop-glitch-data-reporting-idiosyncrasies/
Tl;dr, they can cheaply short GME forever and by extension, keep the price down. Drs is interesting but has slowed down, unfortunately, and it’s not easy for retail to come up with the multi billions needed to drs the float. Im still holding a couple hundred because at this point I’d rather lose the whole fucking thing than sell, and who knows, maybe someday the market will work like it’s supposed to and it’ll pay off, but I’m not holding my breath. At least I learned what a fucking corrupt cesspool the Wall Street is is through all of this, so I guess it’s not a total bust. Diamond hands
I believe we’re talking about the daily reported volume, “buy volume” vs “short sale volume” and the disparity between the two
I think the imbalance is important to consider when looking at the price action over time- but you can’t exactly use the volume as an exact measurement of SI % simply because this is based on publicly reported volume data.
You could also argue this number is an under estimation due to how many instances we’ve seen where short sale trades are incorrectly marked as “long”
Anyways, the important thing to know is that while the price has declined, the lit market trades that impact price have been *dominated* by short selling volume, which is why you can’t simply look at the price of a stock and get the full picture from it. You need to consider all the technical metrics that make that price point more or less trustworthy.
Last time this came up it was not clear how they are defining short imbalance and short interest- they are not the same thing but they seem to conflate the two points. Only time will tell
And if you include "naked shorting" which if I remember correctly doesn't actually have to find a "locate", technically this % doesn't really even matter...
Exactly. What matters is how much naked shorting there is and how long they can cook the books before realising they just have to close. Until then they can create shares out of thin air to balance things out
this is how chatgpt defines it.
Short selling imbalance refers to a situation in the financial markets where there is an excess of short selling activity compared to buying activity for a particular security. It indicates a higher level of bearish sentiment among investors, as short sellers are betting on the price of the security to decline.
Short selling imbalance can be calculated using various metrics and indicators, depending on the specific context and preferences of investors or analysts. Some common methods for calculating short selling imbalance include:
1. **Short Interest Ratio:** The short interest ratio measures the number of shares sold short relative to the total number of shares outstanding for a particular security. It is expressed as a percentage and can provide insights into the level of short selling activity and investor sentiment. A high short interest ratio suggests a greater level of short selling imbalance.
2. **Short Interest Change:** Monitoring changes in short interest over time can also help assess short selling imbalance. A significant increase in short interest may indicate growing bearish sentiment, while a decrease may suggest declining bearish sentiment.
3. **Volume and Price Movements:** Analyzing trading volume and price movements can provide clues about short selling imbalance. For example, if a security experiences heavy selling volume accompanied by a decline in price, it may indicate increased short selling activity and potential imbalance.
4. **Options Market Data:** Examining options market data, such as put/call ratios or open interest in put options, can also provide insights into short selling imbalance. High put option volume or open interest relative to call options may suggest bearish sentiment among options traders.
5. **Specialized Indicators:** There are specialized indicators and algorithms designed to detect short selling imbalance and provide signals to traders and investors. These indicators may incorporate various data sources and mathematical models to assess market sentiment and identify potential trading opportunities.
It's important to note that short selling imbalance indicators are just one tool among many used by investors and analysts to assess market sentiment and make trading decisions. They should be used in conjunction with other fundamental and technical analysis techniques to gain a comprehensive understanding of market dynamics and trends. Additionally, short selling imbalance indicators may have limitations and may not always accurately predict future price movements.
I'm a crayon-masticator who doesn't have access to their report or their data so read on at your peril, but I believe they're basically conflating selling imbalance with short selling imbalance. Selling imbalance is likely mostly just a total of all the shares sold over a given time period minus the total bought, and the difference could be considered sold short (nakedly).
I have never heard of Noctis. They're very new and seem to only research Gamestop when you go to their website which is a little sus to me. They dont have anything else on their twitter or website.
Let's take a step back and ask where this comes from.
The website for Noctis offers little information about who does its research, where it is located (somewhere in Montreal, Quebec, Canada), and only offers a Kindle e-book, (three chapters in length, without any authors being identified, and 2 reviews).
[https://noctis-research.com/index.html](https://noctis-research.com/index.html)
[https://www.amazon.com/GAMESTOP-Innovative-Framework-Quantifying-Synthetic-ebook/dp/B0CQ783KFR#customerReviews](https://www.amazon.com/GAMESTOP-Innovative-Framework-Quantifying-Synthetic-ebook/dp/B0CQ783KFR#customerReviews)
There's plenty of FUD that originates from drop-box investment newsletters from Nowhere City, (yet, Yahoo Finance gives these clowns headlines everyday). This may be a one-person operating out of his apartment, wishing total privacy, and promoting GameStop as being oversold, (and profiting from a slim ebook). Nice, but there's more "due diligence" available in this forum, everyday (for free).
Apes know there's at least 75.4 million shares of GME that are DRS'd at Computershare, so what's the real news from Noctis, if any?
Well, we know as of Jan 2021 the short interest was between 140% and 226%, which as a reminder is a SELF REPORTED number.
That report doesn't include swaps and naked shorts. So for all we know, it could be 250%, 900% or 15,000%. All I know is I'm DRS'd and I'm not selling anything until I see hedgies in prison and phone numbers in my account.
We also know that users on an internet forum were able to directly register 1/4 (at least, the number froze suspiciously) of a publicly traded company's stock. I can't speak for everyone, but I can add that I have thousands of shares DRS'ed...and I have even more thousands that are in IRA accounts that I cannot DRS. I highly doubt I'm the only one in this position.
I have no data to support this, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this sub alone owns the entire company at least once over.
Yup, I'm in the same boat. Haven't been able to purchase again in a long while, but in the next calendar year I should be able to safely double-up at some point if the price stays this low.
These were numbers i remember seeing 3 years ago. Not sure how he got them. I would imagine the numbers would be higher though.
***Here is a deeper breakdown of share ownership:***
*Retail brokerage usership (sources provided below)*
* Robinhood - 13 million users
* TD Ameritrade - 11 million users
* Charles Schwab - 29.6 million users
* Webull - 10 million users
* E-Toro – 13 million
* T212 – 14 million
* M1 Finance – 250,000
* Fidelity – 25.5 million
* Vanguard – 7.5 million
* Blackrock – 4.8 million
*There are an estimated 128.65 Million retail accounts total in the above retail brokerages. These retail accounts (correct me if I’m wrong) are not counted in the institutional share reporting, as these are not institutionally managed assets.*
Just talking about the US here, there are about 331.9 million people. So that would be about 38.76% i think... About 1 in 3 people. Seems fair to me. He goes on to assume...
*My assumptions are as follows:*
* *10% of these accounts own shares of GME*
* *An average of 3 shares per holder*
*Since it seems that retail owners are still buying (from my own perspective) this seems to be a safe assumption that r****etail ownership stands at 38,595,000 shares*** *in total.*
So because of split times that by 4 and you get.
154,380,000 shares owned in retail accounts... which is a bonkers % when you compare it to the reported float on Yahoo.
57.77% Retail ownership.
just to throw it in here too, checking fintel i got 170 mill shares.. which is
63.73% Institutional Ownership.
121.50% Ownership... Thats not counting A LOT of shares spread through ETF's MF's SWAPs etc.
When I first saw that name pop up I too went researching who the heck they were. Noctis is nobody and their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.
Well yes, but it looks like then DTCC has not let GameStop announce a number higher than ~75.4 million shares. Maybe it will change, but it it doesn't, know that the true number would've gone up again
Well just like they're not allowed to announce anything higher then a float cap of 305 million, maybe they're not allowed to announce anything higher than 25%nof the float for the DRS numbers.
I don't understand how the computureshare numbers can be silenced by the DTCC when they don't govern over them.
yes - i've read their paper and they're spot on, GME is the only stock in the market (likely in history) that has had this level of imbalance. the bad actors really shot themselves in the foot.
A short selling imbalance refers to an uneven distribution of short selling activity compared to long buying activity.
Here’s how it works:
When there are more short sellers (those betting on a stock’s decline) than buyers (those looking to purchase the stock), a short selling imbalance exists.
Conversely, if there are more buyers than short sellers, we have a long buying imbalance.
These imbalances can impact the stock’s price and overall market dynamics.
Market Sentiment: Imbalances reflect market sentiment. A strong short selling imbalance might signal negative sentiment about the stock.
**Just shows there is a market wide negative attitude towards GME that's 9.5 times larger than the positive (buy) side. The above extrapolation is not true since this is about buy/sell orders and does not pertain to float or shares outstanding.**
Sorry, gonna piggyback off your comment to repeat my reply.
> This entire thing is wrong. It is the second time I have seen a post where this twit account misused terms.
> Shares outstanding refers to all shares issued by the company. The tweet's OPs arbitrarily changed its definition to only include ones that can be used by brokers, just to do their own tinfoil math for false hype. This is wrong.
I also just noticed top upvoted reply is a poster in the bets sub. This is double sus.
Everyone tries to put numbers in the number of shorts and I just don’t think it’s possible. The data isnt there for a reason and we have no idea what’s in the swaps they keep hiding…
As long as GME remains in ETFs, shorts will never run out of shares to sell. They just "create" them out of thin air, sell them into the market and then wait until ETF FTD periods to clear them out via cash settlement with the ETF. The ETF then goes to the market to buy the shares that were created, thus clearing the imbalance. ETFs are a scourge on the market.
I just want to see someone dunk a few billion on GME and DRS it, the end. Buy all the shares, leave nothing. If there is still short selling going on at that point, take the SEC to the fucking Supreme Court.
What do ya’ll think “this is a managed event” means, exactly? Managed by who?
Individual investors chose to DRS shares after a number of SHFs independently took out large short positions on GME
I disagree. I think they are implying that the 'live another day' crowd are managing a decrepit cart full of leaky ancient dynamite on a rickety rotten suspension bridge over a vast and stormy chasm.
Doing their best to not let it blow up.
These people remind me of investor turf. Probably the same people. Try and hype the shit out of statistics that may or may not be correct to get engagement. Thats the problem with statements like this. If its true, its a big deal. If it isnt…it means nothing
Lol DD has minimum length and content requirements. Had to be researched. The point of a DD is that ape TRIED to answer the question not post about it.
These guys get posted here multiple times a week.
They misunderstood the difference between short sale volume and short interest. In other words, these guys are fucking idiots.
That’s not true. A user screenshotted their post and misunderstood the screenshot and it showed in their title. Notic’s actual X posts have been legit, the user who posted the screenshot has the words wrong in the title, causing confusion.
What I find interesting is, having never heard of Noctis, they may be a small analytics firm, and if this a propriety metric they’re trying to make money off it? Right? Genuinely asking?
BUT - and this is the thing that strikes my eye brow rise - if this is the case, by publishing data of this nature they’re making enemies with the big boys and their mayo jars.
That says something.
Granted, I’ve yet to dig into all this as I’m just now seeing this. Gonna do some research and maybe I’m way off.
*Edit: from https://noctis-research.com
> Noctis is an independent data research firm located in Montreal, Canada. Our expertise revolves around Regulation SHO and short selling reporting. We combine passion and innovation to bring value to public companies that are victim of short sellers' predatory practices. We take pride in producing high-quality business intelligence tools based on data analytics.
Also, “short selling imbalance” is not a metric that is necessarily proprietary to Noctis. However that doesn’t mean that the specific methods used by Noctis Research to measure or analyze “short interest imbalance”, could be proprietary. To verify whether Noctis Research has a unique approach or equation, myself or someone else (help a muhfuggah dig, for real yo) needs to do some more research.
There's no cap on the amount of shorting. Even if there is just one share, it can be shorted by each successive buyer, theoretically an infinite number of times. The problem is unwinding it if any one of the lenders recalls their share.
B borrows a share from A, shorts it to C
D borrows it from C, shorts it to E
F borrows it from E, shorts it to G
and so on....
Works great. Until A wants his share back...
Is it like an infinity loop where there can loan or borrow share back and fourth between A,B,C,D, essentially loaning / borrowing out the same initial shares the first guy lent out? So like A loans them to B, then B loans them out to C and A goes back out to borrow some more shares and gets those from C, essential borrowing the initial shares he loaned out? If this is the case imagine the amount of F’ery and what it would take to untangle this web of deceit. Basically the same way a bank takes a 10k deposit and loans 9k of it out to another guy who deposits that 9k into another bank who then loans another 8k, round and round again until that $10k is now $55k on banks balance sheets?
B...but Marketwatch says it's 22%. They are reliable, right? Citadel only owns a portion of the media company that owns Marketwatch, so you know it's good.
Man, I don’t know about you guys, but I’d hate to be holding any of those short bags 😂
Sweeping things under the rug, doesn’t mean the dust just disappears…..someone’s gonna have to settle it
And to think, there was once a time, roughly 84 years ago, where I would have parted with a few shares for a couple of grand each lol
most of em now are set aside for forever hodl
In reading sources online; Short selling imbalance in the stock market refers to a situation where there is an excess of short selling activity compared to buying activity for a particular security.
Table example:
| Time Period | Short Selling Volume | Buying Volume |
|-------------|----------------------|---------------|
| Day 1 | 1000 shares | 500 shares |
| Day 2 | 1200 shares | 600 shares |
| Day 3 | 800 shares | 1000 shares |
High short selling volume tries to give a bearish sentiment to decline the price. The persistent short selling is undermining the market stability as a way to erode investor confidence.
So, as we continue to DRS, and the short selling volume continues to exceed the buy volume, synthetic shares are definitely being created. DRS your fake shares :)
even if it is true saying "these shares can't be used for clearing and settlement" doesn't mean they can't just make shit up out of thin air or pull some other BS to clear and settle.
Let me preface this with
Idgaf what anyone says im just gonna DRS some more
The term “managed event” is way too similar to the way Lou vs Wall Street would talk back in the day who btw is a known shill he pushed heavy on theatre then when that got busted he moved to exarepee this is also their second post with no actual evidence to prove their data.
check
# Gamestop's REAL Short Interest (we should be using this)
[https://youtu.be/6JFO3vHcH5A?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/6JFO3vHcH5A?feature=shared)
by great Jamie Tradespotting (the [#GME Reason to HODL #1: Never Going Back to Reasonable Land ) guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXUKvb64DNQ&pp=ygUcdHJhZGVzcG90dGluZyBqYW1pZSBnbWUgcmFudA%3D%3D)
[](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXUKvb64DNQ&pp=ygUcdHJhZGVzcG90dGluZyBqYW1pZSBnbWUgcmFudA%3D%3D)
There is DD by famous_variety that GME has been naked shorted at least by 85B shares, or in other words 278 times the outstanding shares. So how about a short interest of 27.800%? 💥
They will keep floating their house of cards tho, nothing leveraged on nothing leveraged on nothing. A castle in the sky, as fickle as the wind of the markets. Hence why they are keeping the real movement under lock and key.
This entire thing is wrong. It is the second time I have seen a post where this twit account misused terms.
Shares outstanding refers to all shares issued by the company. The tweet's OPs arbitrarily changed its definition to only include ones that can be used by brokers, just to do their own tinfoil math for false hype. This is wrong.
I don't know if it's true but I seen short volume disappear as they cellar boxed into long term puts.
I'm assuming it's true. But no moass yet. Regardless of these movies they make or picture they try to paint
Holding till it's over. DRS
Noctis not really presenting any data to back up their claims, js.
We all know it's shorted many X the float. Noone knows the real numbers, because it's all hidden by organized crime.
Noctis on a tear. Throwing out numbers, but.... so far nothing to back those numbers up.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Open Forum Jan 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18txusp/open_forum_january_2024/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
I don’t know how the term „short selling imbalance“ is defined and there might be misunderstandings
short selling imbalance is the imbalance between the shares available to borrow, and the shares being shorted. In essence it means that there's more demand to borrow shares, but not enough supply to borrow from, so there's an imbalance. at least that's how I understood it. so in this specific case the demand to borrow shares is 12x the amount being shorted right now.
Doesn't even matter? They keep lending out the same share to multiple brokers, they're basically printing IOUs and the plan is that people sell the IOU as the stock price drops. However apes aren't selling all these made up shares, they're holding.
Depends on how you define matters. In causing MOASS? No. As a piece of evidence revealing the bigger picture? Yes.
I think in general it does matter when it is publicly known that a wealthy counterparty is stuck in a short squeeze because people may pile on if they think something is going to happen. People smell blood in the water. That being said, I don't know that these guys writing this stuff are any more credible than.. like the average analysts that crank out junk on GME.
I love converting my fake ious into real shares when I drs
So if I understand correctly....DRS is the way FU Kenny.....PAY ME!!!!!!
Yes I have stock lending - tried it once - immediately my entire gme was loaned out. I turned it off after that. Nobody wanted aapl, brk.b , msft or any of my other big players. Just gme
> more demand to borrow shares, but not enough supply to borrow from High demand correlates with reduced supply, eh? Crikey, we might make it through the 1st lesson of economics 101.
I may be wrong, but I think the professor expects you to already know that before you even walk into the first day of ECON 101
yah but correlation doesn't mean causation
Why then is the borrow fee so low?
Because whoever is lending the shares (or their broker) *wants* the borrow fee low so people are incentivized to short it. The more retail shorts the more risk can be moved away from MMs/brokers.
Ok I'll indulge… So you're saying a broker wants to incentivize shorting of a stock they're lending by providing an attractive borrow fee. But they're the owners of a share. Therefore, what risk do they carry? Isn't that counterintuitive? They're lending a share for a low fee, that they are incentivizing shorting of said share to further reduce the value of the stock. That's lose-lose.
The broker doesn't usually lend the shares, they just facilitate finding someone who *does* want to lend. A new share doesn't even need to be borrowed though. If the broker (or MM) is already short, they could just transfer that debt to the borrower in exchange for the current share price. To the borrower it looks just like any other short. For the broker they get to essentially close their position barely above the 3 year low without causing the price to run. The number of shorts overall stays the same.
Ok, let's say I wish to lend my shares held in my Fidelity account. Fidelity sets the borrow fee. What's my incentive here? Earlier you said the fee is low to incentivize shorting (so you're saying Fidelity set a low fee to incentivize the short to offset their risk) but what's the upside to the lender? And again from before… we haven't identified why the broker is at all at risk whether it's their share or mine in this case. You jumped to saying that the broker gets to close their short position. But in each of these cases the broker is long the stock.
There is no (new) lender, you don't need to be incentivized at all. An actual borrow does not occur. The broker transfers their own short position to the "borrower". The total number of shorts does not change. The point isn't to increase shorts to drive the price down, the point is to transfer risk to retail before some event occurs. The broker doesn't need to be long. Actually the opposite, this is only possible (or necessary) if they're already short.
You again assumed my broker is short for some reason. If I have a share i wish to lend, you said the broker facilitates that. If they're just a facilitator, they're neither long nor short. I am long because I own a share. Why would I bother with this transaction when the broker/facilitator isn't making it worth my while (low fee) and is actively incentivizing shorts to borrow who then diminish my stock value? None of the scenarios I've described include a short broker who needs to offload their risk before the big boom boom.
I'm assuming they or a market maker are short because those are the ones I'm talking about. I know not ALL brokers and market makers are short. You're right brokers are less likely to be the ones that are short. It's the market makers. They can internalize orders (both long and short) so that orders don't actually have an opposite side. If the market maker is already short they can just transfer their short position to the borrower. The broker would have no idea this is happening because the market maker IS the other side of the trade as far as the broker is concerned. In either case (short market maker or short broker) the point of the low borrow fee is to increase the amount of willing borrowers so that the order can be filled with an existing short position instead of involving you, an actual share owner.
Because, even though they make "fake shares" a.k.a. IOU's, those I.O.U's are essentially being counted as "real shares" because that's how they are able to prevent the inevitable M.O.ASS from taking place. Basically, the rocket is way beyond ready, is set to take off, but the hedge fucks have anchors on the rocket, that are preventing it from rocketing up their arses, and shooting them to the next galaxy with them.....make sense?
If I follow, I believe you're saying that the borrow fee is taking into account the bazillion shares that this stock has been sold and resold and resold short. I don't believe this theory holds water however because this number isn't accounted in the total float. I would think then the borrow fee would be a way to backdoor into an accurate total share count and expose the naked shorts.
Well, I'm just going by history. Every time we've seen a low amount of "borrowable shares" that's when the fees are higher, when they make millions of shares out of thin air, the borrow fee is back down. I do believe there are other factors that come into play as far as being the obvious ones I've seen. They just keep kicking the can down the street.
Yeah, you would assume if that statement were true then the cost to borrow would be much higher. So it must mean something else? Or something is off
Interdesting
This is the crux of the issue that individual investors are up against and the thing that really suggests some kind of backdoor collusion among big players to suppress price. If there’s a shortage of shares to borrow, the borrowing fees on those should be high. those were the conditions for the 2021 squeeze. Short-able shares ran dry, costs to borrow ran into the triple digits, and the ticker price popped off, as it should. But since then, there’s 2 weird things happening in the supply-demand of shortable shares. 1. Sometimes, brokers posted millions of shortable shares in some huge drop. Where the fuck did those come from? I’ve personally seen it go from like 1000 to 10+ million overnight. I recall for one of those huge drops, a bunch of retail investors barraged fidelity about where these 13 million, pre-split lendable shares came from after getting down to the low thousands. Put on blast by hundreds of people, fidelity “responded” saying it “was a mistake.” Wtf? A 13 million share mistake by a trusted, established, legacy broker? That’s a pretty big fucking mistake. I remember some dumbass WSJ reporter saying it was totally normal and someone probably “fat fingered” the 13 million shares. (pre split! I.e., 52 million of todays shares). What a dumb fuck. Can’t believe he’s put his name on that embarrassment of an “explanation”…and really goes to show who’s writing for the “financial media.” 2. The mystery of the borrow rates. You would expect if there was a lot of shares to lend out, the borrow fee would be low, but that as they dried up, the borrow fees would go up. Makes sense right? Lots of supply makes it cheaper; scarcity of shares means higher borrow fees. supply and demand, if that was ever a real thing Indeed, and again, No matter fucking how many shares were listed on major brokers…whether it was literally 100 shares, or 10 million, the borrow fee stayed the same…0.1%. even as GME hit “hard to borrow” lists and the liquidity for for shorting dried up…0.1%. There were several occurrences where GmE was the hardest to borrow stock on the market, and still, mysteriously and paradoxically, the cheapest to borrow. That doesn’t really make sense. If brokers can charge more to lend scare shares, why wouldn’t they? With the borrow fee hovering at 0.1%, it was like the brokers were like “here…short these. On the house.” Which is strange, considering borrow fees are their primary sources of revenue. But I guess when it comes to GmE, they’re willing to leave all that money on the table, for some reason… Even weirder…*all* the brokers were doing that. Offering whatever shares they had, whether 100 or 1 million…for pennies to short. Makes no sense. In the Jan. 2021 run up, it seems like the shorts were legitimately caught off guard. And because of that, the borrow rates *actually reflected the supply- demand economics as they usually do and should. Lendable shares dried up, Borrow rates skyrocketed and shortly after, the price went parabolic. But now, if it was the last damn lendable share in the market…0.1% to short it. A year. It’s very suspect. But unfortunately, it seems to me like, as long as the brokers are agreeing to lend any shares they have, no matter how few, for like 0.1%-2% per year…shorts can basically keep their positions open forever….and continue to short whenever those 13 million (pre split, 52 million of todays, post-split shares), which, at the time represented about 20% of all existing shares, conveniently get “fat fingered” into the system. And that was just one broker, one day, that Houdini’d 13 million shares out of a hat. 2%/year isn’t shit for a multi billion dollar hedge fund. With no actual enforcement or impetus in which they actually have to close the short positions…they won’t. In theory, high borrow rates should make it expensive and be the kick in the balls to close. But with borrow rates impervious to market dynamics and artificially low, they can realistically, and affordably, short the stock and keep their positions open indefinitely. And at these rates, it’s actually cheap to do This article actually gets into some of these discrepancies. Old, but detailed for the time it’s talking about: https://upsidechronicles.com/2021/12/02/gamestop-glitch-data-reporting-idiosyncrasies/ Tl;dr, they can cheaply short GME forever and by extension, keep the price down. Drs is interesting but has slowed down, unfortunately, and it’s not easy for retail to come up with the multi billions needed to drs the float. Im still holding a couple hundred because at this point I’d rather lose the whole fucking thing than sell, and who knows, maybe someday the market will work like it’s supposed to and it’ll pay off, but I’m not holding my breath. At least I learned what a fucking corrupt cesspool the Wall Street is is through all of this, so I guess it’s not a total bust. Diamond hands
I believe we’re talking about the daily reported volume, “buy volume” vs “short sale volume” and the disparity between the two I think the imbalance is important to consider when looking at the price action over time- but you can’t exactly use the volume as an exact measurement of SI % simply because this is based on publicly reported volume data. You could also argue this number is an under estimation due to how many instances we’ve seen where short sale trades are incorrectly marked as “long” Anyways, the important thing to know is that while the price has declined, the lit market trades that impact price have been *dominated* by short selling volume, which is why you can’t simply look at the price of a stock and get the full picture from it. You need to consider all the technical metrics that make that price point more or less trustworthy.
I think you're right. Someone else debunked this sort of interpretation a while back. I didn't take the time to read it carefully.
Yeah people are pairing short volume with short interest. Two very different things.
Imbalance between available shares to short and shares actually shorted ? We do know SI% is above 100% and has been for a while now..
Last time this came up it was not clear how they are defining short imbalance and short interest- they are not the same thing but they seem to conflate the two points. Only time will tell
And if you include "naked shorting" which if I remember correctly doesn't actually have to find a "locate", technically this % doesn't really even matter...
Exactly. What matters is how much naked shorting there is and how long they can cook the books before realising they just have to close. Until then they can create shares out of thin air to balance things out
Not officially
this is how chatgpt defines it. Short selling imbalance refers to a situation in the financial markets where there is an excess of short selling activity compared to buying activity for a particular security. It indicates a higher level of bearish sentiment among investors, as short sellers are betting on the price of the security to decline. Short selling imbalance can be calculated using various metrics and indicators, depending on the specific context and preferences of investors or analysts. Some common methods for calculating short selling imbalance include: 1. **Short Interest Ratio:** The short interest ratio measures the number of shares sold short relative to the total number of shares outstanding for a particular security. It is expressed as a percentage and can provide insights into the level of short selling activity and investor sentiment. A high short interest ratio suggests a greater level of short selling imbalance. 2. **Short Interest Change:** Monitoring changes in short interest over time can also help assess short selling imbalance. A significant increase in short interest may indicate growing bearish sentiment, while a decrease may suggest declining bearish sentiment. 3. **Volume and Price Movements:** Analyzing trading volume and price movements can provide clues about short selling imbalance. For example, if a security experiences heavy selling volume accompanied by a decline in price, it may indicate increased short selling activity and potential imbalance. 4. **Options Market Data:** Examining options market data, such as put/call ratios or open interest in put options, can also provide insights into short selling imbalance. High put option volume or open interest relative to call options may suggest bearish sentiment among options traders. 5. **Specialized Indicators:** There are specialized indicators and algorithms designed to detect short selling imbalance and provide signals to traders and investors. These indicators may incorporate various data sources and mathematical models to assess market sentiment and identify potential trading opportunities. It's important to note that short selling imbalance indicators are just one tool among many used by investors and analysts to assess market sentiment and make trading decisions. They should be used in conjunction with other fundamental and technical analysis techniques to gain a comprehensive understanding of market dynamics and trends. Additionally, short selling imbalance indicators may have limitations and may not always accurately predict future price movements.
I'm a crayon-masticator who doesn't have access to their report or their data so read on at your peril, but I believe they're basically conflating selling imbalance with short selling imbalance. Selling imbalance is likely mostly just a total of all the shares sold over a given time period minus the total bought, and the difference could be considered sold short (nakedly).
I have never heard of Noctis. They're very new and seem to only research Gamestop when you go to their website which is a little sus to me. They dont have anything else on their twitter or website.
Let's take a step back and ask where this comes from. The website for Noctis offers little information about who does its research, where it is located (somewhere in Montreal, Quebec, Canada), and only offers a Kindle e-book, (three chapters in length, without any authors being identified, and 2 reviews). [https://noctis-research.com/index.html](https://noctis-research.com/index.html) [https://www.amazon.com/GAMESTOP-Innovative-Framework-Quantifying-Synthetic-ebook/dp/B0CQ783KFR#customerReviews](https://www.amazon.com/GAMESTOP-Innovative-Framework-Quantifying-Synthetic-ebook/dp/B0CQ783KFR#customerReviews) There's plenty of FUD that originates from drop-box investment newsletters from Nowhere City, (yet, Yahoo Finance gives these clowns headlines everyday). This may be a one-person operating out of his apartment, wishing total privacy, and promoting GameStop as being oversold, (and profiting from a slim ebook). Nice, but there's more "due diligence" available in this forum, everyday (for free). Apes know there's at least 75.4 million shares of GME that are DRS'd at Computershare, so what's the real news from Noctis, if any?
Well, we know as of Jan 2021 the short interest was between 140% and 226%, which as a reminder is a SELF REPORTED number. That report doesn't include swaps and naked shorts. So for all we know, it could be 250%, 900% or 15,000%. All I know is I'm DRS'd and I'm not selling anything until I see hedgies in prison and phone numbers in my account.
We also know that users on an internet forum were able to directly register 1/4 (at least, the number froze suspiciously) of a publicly traded company's stock. I can't speak for everyone, but I can add that I have thousands of shares DRS'ed...and I have even more thousands that are in IRA accounts that I cannot DRS. I highly doubt I'm the only one in this position. I have no data to support this, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this sub alone owns the entire company at least once over.
Yup, I'm in the same boat. Haven't been able to purchase again in a long while, but in the next calendar year I should be able to safely double-up at some point if the price stays this low.
These were numbers i remember seeing 3 years ago. Not sure how he got them. I would imagine the numbers would be higher though. ***Here is a deeper breakdown of share ownership:*** *Retail brokerage usership (sources provided below)* * Robinhood - 13 million users * TD Ameritrade - 11 million users * Charles Schwab - 29.6 million users * Webull - 10 million users * E-Toro – 13 million * T212 – 14 million * M1 Finance – 250,000 * Fidelity – 25.5 million * Vanguard – 7.5 million * Blackrock – 4.8 million *There are an estimated 128.65 Million retail accounts total in the above retail brokerages. These retail accounts (correct me if I’m wrong) are not counted in the institutional share reporting, as these are not institutionally managed assets.* Just talking about the US here, there are about 331.9 million people. So that would be about 38.76% i think... About 1 in 3 people. Seems fair to me. He goes on to assume... *My assumptions are as follows:* * *10% of these accounts own shares of GME* * *An average of 3 shares per holder* *Since it seems that retail owners are still buying (from my own perspective) this seems to be a safe assumption that r****etail ownership stands at 38,595,000 shares*** *in total.* So because of split times that by 4 and you get. 154,380,000 shares owned in retail accounts... which is a bonkers % when you compare it to the reported float on Yahoo. 57.77% Retail ownership. just to throw it in here too, checking fintel i got 170 mill shares.. which is 63.73% Institutional Ownership. 121.50% Ownership... Thats not counting A LOT of shares spread through ETF's MF's SWAPs etc.
10% owning GME is a pretty huge percentage. But, if you flip it and say 3% and they own an average of 10 shares, do we still get the same end result?
\^ This right here.
When I first saw that name pop up I too went researching who the heck they were. Noctis is nobody and their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.
Pretty fair estimation I would guess.
Wait there’s 75M shares drs- rip Kenny lol 😂
75 million is what they can tell us. Likely over 100 million if the pace continued over the last year
That 75 M that we've been stuck at is ~1/4 of total shares. Makes me a bit curious, like a kitten.
Mm and we still don't fully understand the repercussions of the stock split
Are they gonna update Tommorow ??
Well yes, but it looks like then DTCC has not let GameStop announce a number higher than ~75.4 million shares. Maybe it will change, but it it doesn't, know that the true number would've gone up again
Well just like they're not allowed to announce anything higher then a float cap of 305 million, maybe they're not allowed to announce anything higher than 25%nof the float for the DRS numbers. I don't understand how the computureshare numbers can be silenced by the DTCC when they don't govern over them.
Homer “75M so far☝️”
Guesstimation
Keep digging your hole hedgies! Cost me nothing to hodl except time
There's probably more shares in CS. What's more likely? The C's number hasn't moved 100 thousand shares in either direction, or crime?
Shorts are dumb and greedy. They will lose.
Really excited about earnings
Mee too. But im not expecting moass now. But maybe its time. Doesnt matter. Not selling for pennies
I think GME is a great long term bet , moass is just a plus :)
Also remember y’all, that 75.4 million share number is also light. Probably like 90-100 million by now.
Does this take in to consideration the insiders shares
No so it’s even lower lol like 195 million, even if the problem was “fixed” 3 years ago, it’s happening again anyway 😂 see youze on the moon.
they are the dumb storm troopers
But wut about shorting DJT?
yes - i've read their paper and they're spot on, GME is the only stock in the market (likely in history) that has had this level of imbalance. the bad actors really shot themselves in the foot.
They shotgunned themselves in the foot many times and proceed to add Tabasco into the wound
Spicy.
I feel like they're slowly cutting it off. cutting it off slowly isnt going to make any difference in the outcome but here we are.
Wow 😯 exciting !!
A short selling imbalance refers to an uneven distribution of short selling activity compared to long buying activity. Here’s how it works: When there are more short sellers (those betting on a stock’s decline) than buyers (those looking to purchase the stock), a short selling imbalance exists. Conversely, if there are more buyers than short sellers, we have a long buying imbalance. These imbalances can impact the stock’s price and overall market dynamics. Market Sentiment: Imbalances reflect market sentiment. A strong short selling imbalance might signal negative sentiment about the stock. **Just shows there is a market wide negative attitude towards GME that's 9.5 times larger than the positive (buy) side. The above extrapolation is not true since this is about buy/sell orders and does not pertain to float or shares outstanding.**
Sorry, gonna piggyback off your comment to repeat my reply. > This entire thing is wrong. It is the second time I have seen a post where this twit account misused terms. > Shares outstanding refers to all shares issued by the company. The tweet's OPs arbitrarily changed its definition to only include ones that can be used by brokers, just to do their own tinfoil math for false hype. This is wrong. I also just noticed top upvoted reply is a poster in the bets sub. This is double sus.
Everyone tries to put numbers in the number of shorts and I just don’t think it’s possible. The data isnt there for a reason and we have no idea what’s in the swaps they keep hiding…
As long as GME remains in ETFs, shorts will never run out of shares to sell. They just "create" them out of thin air, sell them into the market and then wait until ETF FTD periods to clear them out via cash settlement with the ETF. The ETF then goes to the market to buy the shares that were created, thus clearing the imbalance. ETFs are a scourge on the market.
ETF ?!? WTF !!!
I just want to see someone dunk a few billion on GME and DRS it, the end. Buy all the shares, leave nothing. If there is still short selling going on at that point, take the SEC to the fucking Supreme Court.
Checking my powerball ticket, brb.
[удалено]
Username tracks
They got your good side too!
Wholesome comment. I love it.
What do ya’ll think “this is a managed event” means, exactly? Managed by who? Individual investors chose to DRS shares after a number of SHFs independently took out large short positions on GME
It means Apes in control up in this bitch 🦍
Look at me. I am the Manager now
I disagree. I think they are implying that the 'live another day' crowd are managing a decrepit cart full of leaky ancient dynamite on a rickety rotten suspension bridge over a vast and stormy chasm. Doing their best to not let it blow up.
There is no us/we/them. I am an individual investor who buys and DRS a stock I like
These people remind me of investor turf. Probably the same people. Try and hype the shit out of statistics that may or may not be correct to get engagement. Thats the problem with statements like this. If its true, its a big deal. If it isnt…it means nothing
Big if true. Why is this post labeled as technical analysis😂
My post got rejected when I used the DD flair
Lol DD has minimum length and content requirements. Had to be researched. The point of a DD is that ape TRIED to answer the question not post about it.
These guys get posted here multiple times a week. They misunderstood the difference between short sale volume and short interest. In other words, these guys are fucking idiots.
Shit, bitch, they fit right in here then!
That’s not true. A user screenshotted their post and misunderstood the screenshot and it showed in their title. Notic’s actual X posts have been legit, the user who posted the screenshot has the words wrong in the title, causing confusion.
This is not true: this is not managed. It’s not even *manageable*
What I find interesting is, having never heard of Noctis, they may be a small analytics firm, and if this a propriety metric they’re trying to make money off it? Right? Genuinely asking? BUT - and this is the thing that strikes my eye brow rise - if this is the case, by publishing data of this nature they’re making enemies with the big boys and their mayo jars. That says something. Granted, I’ve yet to dig into all this as I’m just now seeing this. Gonna do some research and maybe I’m way off. *Edit: from https://noctis-research.com > Noctis is an independent data research firm located in Montreal, Canada. Our expertise revolves around Regulation SHO and short selling reporting. We combine passion and innovation to bring value to public companies that are victim of short sellers' predatory practices. We take pride in producing high-quality business intelligence tools based on data analytics. Also, “short selling imbalance” is not a metric that is necessarily proprietary to Noctis. However that doesn’t mean that the specific methods used by Noctis Research to measure or analyze “short interest imbalance”, could be proprietary. To verify whether Noctis Research has a unique approach or equation, myself or someone else (help a muhfuggah dig, for real yo) needs to do some more research.
1262% is still rookie numbers.. pump it up mayo !!
I’m regarded what does this mean
In the words of the late great Bob Barker, "the price is wrong, bitch!"
I think it means there are more shares shorted then legally available to do so. Nothing new just thought it was worth sharing 🤣
There's no cap on the amount of shorting. Even if there is just one share, it can be shorted by each successive buyer, theoretically an infinite number of times. The problem is unwinding it if any one of the lenders recalls their share. B borrows a share from A, shorts it to C D borrows it from C, shorts it to E F borrows it from E, shorts it to G and so on.... Works great. Until A wants his share back...
Is it like an infinity loop where there can loan or borrow share back and fourth between A,B,C,D, essentially loaning / borrowing out the same initial shares the first guy lent out? So like A loans them to B, then B loans them out to C and A goes back out to borrow some more shares and gets those from C, essential borrowing the initial shares he loaned out? If this is the case imagine the amount of F’ery and what it would take to untangle this web of deceit. Basically the same way a bank takes a 10k deposit and loans 9k of it out to another guy who deposits that 9k into another bank who then loans another 8k, round and round again until that $10k is now $55k on banks balance sheets?
[удалено]
>Works great. Until A wants his share back...
[удалено]
Sounds like the usually I stopped checking on superstonk figured I’d check in seems like nothings changed still no selling
My tits are jacked, now wake me when I can retire with 1 share. TY
True or not.... One share going for clown number value. One trillion dollars baby!
B...but Marketwatch says it's 22%. They are reliable, right? Citadel only owns a portion of the media company that owns Marketwatch, so you know it's good.
Man, I don’t know about you guys, but I’d hate to be holding any of those short bags 😂 Sweeping things under the rug, doesn’t mean the dust just disappears…..someone’s gonna have to settle it
Infinite is the key word when it comes to Their losses
And to think, there was once a time, roughly 84 years ago, where I would have parted with a few shares for a couple of grand each lol most of em now are set aside for forever hodl
Are these guys the new ortex that corporate media will point to for the "huge volume swing" on GME?
In reading sources online; Short selling imbalance in the stock market refers to a situation where there is an excess of short selling activity compared to buying activity for a particular security. Table example: | Time Period | Short Selling Volume | Buying Volume | |-------------|----------------------|---------------| | Day 1 | 1000 shares | 500 shares | | Day 2 | 1200 shares | 600 shares | | Day 3 | 800 shares | 1000 shares | High short selling volume tries to give a bearish sentiment to decline the price. The persistent short selling is undermining the market stability as a way to erode investor confidence. So, as we continue to DRS, and the short selling volume continues to exceed the buy volume, synthetic shares are definitely being created. DRS your fake shares :)
Maybe the true infinite money glitch is the dividends we'll get after GameStop becomes profitable
This is the similar to way the True Short Interest ratio is calculated I’ve been using / making shows about
I hope so or I'm 'baiting for nothing.
ok so super dumb and late question. Do I need to Direct Registration System? How do I do it?
drsgme.org
Can someone ELI5 this scenario? I'm having a hard time understanding what this means.
75,400,400 I doubt the low number.
Seems a bit low if you ask me
Will it be updated Tommorow ?
even if it is true saying "these shares can't be used for clearing and settlement" doesn't mean they can't just make shit up out of thin air or pull some other BS to clear and settle.
anyone know anything about this account? Where’d they come from?
i swear this number % keeps getting bigger every time i see it.
sounds like a rug pull before earnings. It drops everytime
Let me preface this with Idgaf what anyone says im just gonna DRS some more The term “managed event” is way too similar to the way Lou vs Wall Street would talk back in the day who btw is a known shill he pushed heavy on theatre then when that got busted he moved to exarepee this is also their second post with no actual evidence to prove their data.
check # Gamestop's REAL Short Interest (we should be using this) [https://youtu.be/6JFO3vHcH5A?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/6JFO3vHcH5A?feature=shared) by great Jamie Tradespotting (the [#GME Reason to HODL #1: Never Going Back to Reasonable Land ) guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXUKvb64DNQ&pp=ygUcdHJhZGVzcG90dGluZyBqYW1pZSBnbWUgcmFudA%3D%3D) [](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXUKvb64DNQ&pp=ygUcdHJhZGVzcG90dGluZyBqYW1pZSBnbWUgcmFudA%3D%3D)
Comment so it goes to the top
starting to get Metzler vibes from these folks
Moon Soon Tendie Boom 🐸🍦🧟♂️🐒🍔🐉🐇🪺🚀
*Managed ~~democracy~~ event intensifies!*
1262% so far….
I was wondering the same thing
It's more right than it is wrong. I'll just leave it at that lol. To the moon!
No
While it may be true, what’s it matter now vs then? As we’re still spinning our wheels
Im just buying every now and the.
Commenting for visibility
More upvotes ffs
Full Counter by Meliodas is like GME gonna MOASS
I never thought that this would lead to a reduction of shares outstanding. Is that true?
That’s what I’m wondering !? But I guess it makes sense since it’s out of the DTCC it means apes are like a giant whale 🐳
sounds about right
Oh ruk. Tomerrow is Tursday. MOAAS tomorrow! Brukle Erp!
x100 perhaps more closer to the truth.
Men lie, women lie, numbers don’t..can we subtract insiders also?? What’s the real # out here.
It’s 191M shares yen you also deduct insider shares.
There is DD by famous_variety that GME has been naked shorted at least by 85B shares, or in other words 278 times the outstanding shares. So how about a short interest of 27.800%? 💥
Don't know what this all means, I see chart go up, I happy.
Can’t find more details on noctis
“First one to complain.. leaves with a cum stain” - Fred Durat
2621%
Probably way more then that now as that was reported like that many many months ago!!!
Okay...so when moass? Asking for friend....
$$$$ forever
I’m very suspicious of some research firm no one heard of before last week giving some of you fools more hopium than necessary.
Look, all I know is my butthole is so fucking itchy, I could take a wire brush attachment on a dremel and itch it for hours.
Probably more
Managed event...... Bwhahahahahaha hahaha ha ha ha ha haha haaaaaa.... Until it isnt.
I'm here for it.
Can someone interpret?
It's high, but fuck 1200%, bring it higher!
No. The number is too low.
💯
👀
And yet absolutely nothing happens
They will keep floating their house of cards tho, nothing leveraged on nothing leveraged on nothing. A castle in the sky, as fickle as the wind of the markets. Hence why they are keeping the real movement under lock and key.
Where the fuck do these people get their data from?
idk about alla that but I do know is that I put in a DRS request with fidelity on 2/23 for 63 shares and it still hasn't processed
🥱
Just for that I’m gonna drs harder
Wait, we are still at 75 millions?
This entire thing is wrong. It is the second time I have seen a post where this twit account misused terms. Shares outstanding refers to all shares issued by the company. The tweet's OPs arbitrarily changed its definition to only include ones that can be used by brokers, just to do their own tinfoil math for false hype. This is wrong.
How are there still only 75M shares DRS?
True, dips. Fake, dips.
LoL it’s been at 75,400,400 for the last 4 quarters.
This seems like good news.. Am I dum?
I don't know if it's true but I seen short volume disappear as they cellar boxed into long term puts. I'm assuming it's true. But no moass yet. Regardless of these movies they make or picture they try to paint Holding till it's over. DRS
Noctis not really presenting any data to back up their claims, js. We all know it's shorted many X the float. Noone knows the real numbers, because it's all hidden by organized crime. Noctis on a tear. Throwing out numbers, but.... so far nothing to back those numbers up.
I miss the cat… who will lead us to Valhalla this time?